resolve: Remove module_children_untracked

[petrochenkov]

One of the expensive spans in ModChild was removed in #109772, so let's try again.

[rustbot]

r? @compiler-errors

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[petrochenkov]

@bors try @rust-timer queue

[bors]

⌛ Trying commit 53c71b6 with merge a30a1d2020b4ad57e8f7318b624993b0f25c5eb9...

[bors]

☀️ Try build successful - checks-actions
Build commit: a30a1d2020b4ad57e8f7318b624993b0f25c5eb9 (a30a1d2020b4ad57e8f7318b624993b0f25c5eb9)

[compiler-errors]

(r=me if perf is green)

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (a30a1d2020b4ad57e8f7318b624993b0f25c5eb9): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Benchmarking this pull request likely means that it is perf-sensitive, so we're automatically marking it as not fit for rolling up. While you can manually mark this PR as fit for rollup, we strongly recommend not doing so since this PR may lead to changes in compiler perf.

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this try perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please fix the regressions and do another perf run. If the next run shows neutral or positive results, the label will be automatically removed.

@bors rollup=never
@rustbot label: -S-waiting-on-perf +perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.6%	[0.3%, 0.9%]	13
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.2%	[-2.1%, -0.3%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.5%	[-0.3%, 0.9%]	15

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.4%	[0.6%, 3.7%]	5
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.0%, 2.7%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.9%	[-1.2%, -0.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.5%	[-1.5%, -1.5%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.7%	[-1.2%, 3.7%]	7

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	1.7%	[1.3%, 2.2%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

[petrochenkov]

I think it's reasonable to land this.
Memoization helps when it can help (projection-caching and issue-88862 use module_children a lot to trim paths for reporting warnings), and query overhead is now low enough in other cases.
@rustbot ready

[cjgillot]

I agree: perf reports balanced regressions and improvements, with some interesting improvements for corner cases. This has the benefit of removing one hole in incremental information tracking.
@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit 53c71b6 has been approved by cjgillot

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 53c71b6 with merge 4096619...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing 4096619 to master...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: cjgillot
Pushing 4096619 to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (4096619): comparison URL.

Overall result: ❌✅ regressions and improvements - ACTION NEEDED

Next Steps: If you can justify the regressions found in this perf run, please indicate this with @rustbot label: +perf-regression-triaged along with sufficient written justification. If you cannot justify the regressions please open an issue or create a new PR that fixes the regressions, add a comment linking to the newly created issue or PR, and then add the perf-regression-triaged label to this PR.

@rustbot label: +perf-regression
cc @rust-lang/wg-compiler-performance

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	0.6%	[0.2%, 0.9%]	11
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-0.3%	[-0.3%, -0.3%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-1.5%	[-1.9%, -1.0%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.6%	[-0.3%, 0.9%]	12

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	1.5%	[0.5%, 2.2%]	6
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.8%	[1.6%, 5.1%]	4
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-1.2%	[-1.2%, -1.2%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-4.4%	[-8.6%, -2.2%]	6
All ❌✅ (primary)	1.1%	[-1.2%, 2.2%]	7

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	2.3%	[2.0%, 2.6%]	2
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-7.7%	[-7.8%, -7.5%]	3
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0